Issuance of addenda or site instructions.

[Alex F.]

Is it possible with Revit to issue revisions of plans without duplicate views on new sheets?
Ex.: I revised the detail #2 which is on the sheet S301, a A0, but I will convey my site instruction by fax on a 8.5"x11" sheet. My #2 amended detail must remain on the sheet S301, but must also be on my 8.5"x11"sheet.
Can this be done without going crazy with the many additional sheets and details now named "Copy of ..." or "Dependent on ..."? The project tree begone very heavy :banghead: and everyone can get lost, both in the office and on site ... the phone will not stop ringing ...
I know filters can be use for sheets but ...
Any ideas for not creating copies of the same detail or the same section because they appear on multiple sheets keeping all information they contains, original or revised?

[snowyweston]

Do you re-issue sheet S301 at the same time as the site instruction?

[jsnyder]

Yes. The simple answer is to not try to keep track of that documentation (sketches and other supporting information) in the model.
Our method is to update the model, use a temporary sketch titleblock with a masking region on the sheet, print a PDF of the sketch, then delete the sketch titleblock. Our main reason for doing it this way (other than the obvious ones you mention in your post) is that often, we revise the same area of the model more than once and trying to keep track of this in the live model is impossible.
The resulting PDF and addenda/RFI documentation become the chronological project record, not the model. The model can only realistically reflect the most recent changes. You cannot really use revision clouds and tags to determine what changed for a given condition anyway - you will almost always have to look at some other part of the project record to determine this, so why fight it?

[Alex F.]

Do you re-issue sheet S301 at the same time as the site instruction?

No, just the amended detail, not the full page.

[snowyweston]

The simple answer is to not try to keep track of that documentation (sketches and other supporting information) in the model.

Agreed - but I wanted to check if the documentation always ran in parallel before suggesting pretty much a similar workflow to the one you've proposed.

No, just the amended detail, not the full page.

So already, you now have two versions of the same detail "out there". By not re-issuing the original sheet, your workflow forces you to have the extra (revised) version (and so in turn, an extra view). No?

That said, we still promote site instructions to be redlined by hand, using existing (issued) drawings. Once dwf'd & sent they're logged and work continues... it then comes down to whether or not the model is planned for delivery "as built" for us to retrospectively incorporate the changes to the "real" drawing.... which, thankfully, is rare with our contracts.

[Alex F.]

Yes. The simple answer is to not try to keep track of that documentation (sketches and other supporting information) in the model.

Ok, I understand that (but maybe not my boss for legal responsibility question of the engineer ... they're always want be self-protected).
I'll try as you suggested to me. Thanks!